W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Decision process in the HTML working group

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 11:20:47 -0600
Message-ID: <463F5FEF.1040208@w3.org>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, www-archive@w3.org

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On May 7, 2007, at 7:58 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Well, there's people in between where it's hard for me to tell if 
>>> they would have registered an FO as a follow-on to a "no" vote.
>> This business where the FO is a follow-on to a decision seems
>> broken, to me. The point at which to object, formally, is when
>> the question is put, not after the decision is made.
> I've asked around, and that doesn't seem to be the way other W3C Working 
> Groups do it. I've heard from representatives from the Web API, WAF, 
> SVG, CSS, CDF, Web Security Context, Mobile Web Best Practices and 
> Device Description WGs, in all cases they decide by simple majority 
> after sufficient discussion, and Formal Objections have to be registered 
> separately. I encourage you to ask other chairs about this.

I'm well aware that other chairs in other groups do it differently.
I still think it's wierd/broken.

> The Process document also says: "In the W3C process, an individual may 
> register a Formal Objection to a decision."

Yeah, I might have to get that fixed.

>  This seems pretty clear 
> that the Formal Objection is to a decision actually made, not just a 
> proposed resolution. I feel a little guilty citing the Process document, 
> but I really do think a voting process where every disagreement with the 
> majority must be reviewed by the Director creates practical problems as 
> cited in my original email.

I have no use for "I disagree with the majority" data. I _only_
have use for
   * I support the proposal; I'm willing to help get it deployed

   * I object to the proposal to the extent that I want to put
     the whole project at risk

I'm happy to lump all the rest (abstain/no answer/disagree/whatever)
together, for formal decision-making purposes.

Maybe the easiest thing is changing the label on "abstain"
to "abstain or disagree" or change the label on "no"
to "formally object".

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 17:20:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:11 UTC